> I didn't hijacked anyone's thread. That's a matter of opinion. In *my* opinion, not hijacking the thread would have looked like this: "I'd really like to see a fix for bug #1234 (error using update() on 'object' elements) in 22.214.171.124, it's a serious problem." And, er, yes, that *would* have involved taking five minutes to properly submit a bug report. Clearly you disagree, which is your right, but I suspect you're in the minority.
> You want to make this about me submitting or not > submitting a bug? I don't want to make it about anything at all. You said: > I really don't know how to submit a > bug, or how to compile prototype. So if you want you can submit this > yourself ... ...which is seriously uncool, so I called you on it. Move along, nothing to see here. -- T.J. Crowder tj / crowder software / com On Sep 23, 1:16 am, Valentin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I didn't hijacked anyone's thread. This is about the upcoming 126.96.36.199 > so what I posted is directly related. The purpose of a JS library is > to 1) provide compatibility among browsers using the same code 2) > reduce the time the programmer has to spent to do certain tasks. > > Also in today's day IE7 has BY FAR the highest market share, and also > the <object> tag is the XHTML requirement to presenting Java > applications, flash objects, and the like which, now, more than ever, > appear on Web 2.0 pages. If Prototype can't hadle these two things > than it is missing it's point, and it's users. > > I'm not talking here about a "pet" problem, but about some fundamental > facts. Your most basic function doesn't work on the most used browser > with one of the most common tags in XHTML (that are called in JS > events). Therefore you are building a house on a crappy foundation, > and it will fall. You want to make this about me submitting or not > submitting a bug? Really I already told you what is wrong, how to > recreate it, so any developer of the ones that have read this topic > could have taken the time to fix it instead of replying back 3 pages > long of messages on how I should have done this. > > On Sep 7, 5:56 am, "T.J. Crowder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I really don't know how to submit a > > > bug, or how to compile prototype. So if you want you can submit this > > > yourself ... > > > Valentin, I'm not on the core team (or any Prototype team, although I > > help moderate the user's discussion group), so I think I can say > > this: It's all very well complaining about bugs (in fact, hijacking > > other peoples' threads to talk about your pet bugs), but that's not > > constructive. You don't know how to submit a bug report? How hard > > did you try to find out? Because fromhttp://prototypejs.org, there's > > this big tempting link labelled "Contribute" saying "Submit patches > > and report bugs" under it. Gosh. And lo!, if you follow that link > > and it tells you exactly what you do to submit a bug report, complete > > with links and instructions. How hard was that? Sure, it'll take a > > few minutes, but then again so did posting to this thread. > > > I'm not trying to be unkind, but c'mon, *everyone* working on > > Prototype is a volunteer. They're donating their time and we're > > getting the benefit of their efforts. Telling them to file your bug > > reports for you is seriously uncool. Take ten minutes and file your > > own report; they've sure as heck saved you more than ten minutes with > > their code. I'd rather the core team and contributors spent their > > time doing something more constructive -- like, you know, fixing the > > problems people take the time to report properly. Which, curiously, > > they do. > > -- > > T.J. Crowder > > tj / crowder software / com > > > On Sep 6, 6:24 am, Valentin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I really seems weird that nobody in the world actually had to deal > > > with $.update on an <object> ... I really don't know how to submit a > > > bug, or how to compile prototype. So if you want you can submit this > > > yourself ... > > > > On Sep 5, 7:07 pm, kangax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 5, 8:03 pm, Valentin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Save the above piece of code in a .htm file and run it in FIREFOX 3.0 > > > > > and IE 7. In FF 3 if we use stable 188.8.131.52 code works as expeected. In > > > > > IE 7 it fails. The problem is that I cannot extend the <object> tag > > > > > It does extend object element as far as I can see. E.g. `show`/`hide` > > > > work as expected. > > > > > > with the $ function. It's really unbelivable that this hasn't been > > > > > documented / fix to this date ... > > > > > <object>'s in IE are notorious for their buggy behavior. E.g. trying > > > > to call `appendChild` (which `update` uses internally) results in an > > > > error. > > > > > It's also a good idea to file bug reports when you encounter such > > > > issues. It's not easy to test for all the edge-case scenarios. > > > > > -- > > > > kangax > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---